2-perf Panavision?

[Nathan Milford]

Ask pretty much any modern lab / post facility and they should be able to handle 2-perf. Postworks, Technicolor etc...

[David Mullen ASC]

Does Final Cut Pro support 2-perf issues? AVID?

[Dan Goulder]

Does Final Cut Pro support 2-perf issues? AVID?

The universal option of Media Composer supports 2-perf. Also, the latest version of Avid HD Express Pro appears to have a 2-perf option.

[Stephen Williams]

Well, this is really academic, if you think about it. Since you're dealing with making 2 perfs just as tall as a 4-perf anamorphic feature, you'd get exactly twice as much weave fora given filmstock/telecine combination for 2 perf as you would for 4-perf.

 

Hi Karl,

 

Nice theory but incorrect. Frames 1,3,5,7,9,etc will be totally steady if shot with a pin registered camera. Frames 2,4,6,8,10 will not be registered accurately to anything. As film stock perforations varies, testing in advance won't hep. You may however get a false sense of security.

 

Stephen

[Patrick Cooper]

Out of curiosity, how much of an increase in film area would you get with a 2-perf 35mm frame as compared to a S16 frame? Would there still be a significant increase in frame size to produce noticeably sharper and finer grained images than S16mm?

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Yes. It's almost twice the size of the neg of 16mm. No free lunch, though - it's still also about twice as expensive as 16mmm still.

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, basically you're paying for real estate -- 2-perf 35mm is half the cost of 4-perf 35mm, 16mm is half the cost of 2-perf 35mm, 16mm is a quarter the cost of 4-perf 35mm, etc.

 

The Multivision 235 site shows a size comparison:

http://www.multivision235.com.au/moreinfo.html

 

Though the main advantage of 2-perf is for a 2.35 frame.

[Eden Lagaly-Faynot]

Yes, basically you're paying for real estate -- 2-perf 35mm is half the cost of 4-perf 35mm, 16mm is half the cost of 2-perf 35mm, 16mm is a quarter the cost of 4-perf 35mm, etc.

Hello,

I'm a bit lost : in their article "Why 2-Perf" Abel Cine Tech affirm :

This translates to similar running times, per magazine, to shooting Super 16. Your stock order is cut in half and, consequently, your processing and telecine charges are reduced by half. This translates to similar costs to shooting Super 16

Is that a mistake or just marketing?

 

Thanks,

Eden.

[Nathan Milford]

Eden,

 

I wrote that article. It is not marketing it is my sincere attempt to get my employers to pay attention to the format in anticipation for Penelope.

 

The logic of the passage you cite is thus:

 

Since the 2-perf frame is half the height of a 4-perf frame (as is the 16mm frame) you are fitting twice as much information (picture wise, not resolution wise) on a roll of film. The running times of a 35mm roll of film in 2-perf is the same as with 16mm. To cover 11 minutes of action in 16mm is about 400', the same is true with 2-perf. To cover 11 minutes in 4-perf 35mm you'd need about 1000'. Since you pay per foot for processing and dailies you are paying the same amount for 16mm as you would for 2-perf.

 

It doesn't work that way for color correction because you're paying for time no matter what format.

 

Additionally, a 400' roll of 35mm will cost roughly twice what a 400' roll of 16mm as it is roughly double the film (width wise). You will, however, order LESS rolls of film to cover the same amount of action.

 

The reasons for using the format are not all cost cutting, but cutting your processing and dailies in half as well as obviating the need for heavier, slower, costlier anamorphic lenses in favor of sphericals doesn't hurt.

 

If any of you are going to NAB and are interested in the format, do me a favor: Talk to Pete or Rich Abel at the AbelCine booth about the format. Let them know there is interest. Additionally, lobby the Aaton booth.

 

There is a 2-perf movement for the Aaton 35-III out there that I am trying to convince Aaton to loan us so we can get it into rental and drum up some interest. I know a dozen clients who want to shoot on the format, several productions that would if there were modern equipment and a few that have with Kinors and Eclairs.

[Nathan Milford]

JP just posted this at the CML:

 

Hello,

I could as well send this announcement to 'cml future cameras'

since it is about a camera system for the future.

 

Penelope-2 is a very quiet, light, low power, triple format camera:

35mm 3Perf and 2Perf (a 10 minute shop adjustment),

and, being of the instant magazine breed, it is designed

to receive a digital magazine (a one minute on-location operation),

the day a really good 4K sensor comes on the market.

 

Its 'progressive scan' video-assist brings an interesting

new function: it generates time-indexed jpeg proxies into a USB key,

which also stores all the metadata collected by the camera*.

Penelope thus generates an immediatly printable PDF 'Image-Report'

showing the proxies, (from four to N evenly spread over the take),

metadata, and AatonCode.

 

* Those of you with a good memory will recall the Super16 Xtr's

'Event Memory', introduced in the early 80s, which stored the

lens parameters, tilt angle, starts/stops, mag IDs etc..

and downloaded this data into the Aaton 'Script Supervisor'

master clock (a PDA before the PDAs).

 

Metadata retrieval is already a standard feature of the Aaton Cantar

8 track recorder which delivers an end of day printable 'Sound-Report'

in PDF format. It goes without saying that merging the two databases,

thanks to the camera and recorder common timecode, will result in an

easily readable Image/Sound-Report tremendously helping the on-location

team and the post-prod people.

 

Penelope-2 is waiting for you at the NAB.

--jp

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Here's a little something i found on wikipedia.

 

apperantly its nothing new.

 

The 1st Techniscope feature:

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055296/combined

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055296/trivia

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055296/technical

 

This has been verified on off line sources, Such as SMPTE journal.

 

Odly enough the earliest Techniscope movies were released in the US in Eastmancolor prints.

 

 

This can't really be a new thing at all - Titanic's underwater shots on the real wreck were shot with a 2-perf Panavision camera, so the movement must have been done years ago and just been lying on some shelf. Just that noboy asked for it, probably.

 

I doubt that that was a Panaflex.

 

They also converted an Arri IIC to two perf on 'Runaway'. It was used on a little remote controled car for POV shot from some flying hypodermic missle weaving through traffic, maybe with a 9.8mm lens.

[Frank Cook]

"Since the 2-perf frame is half the height of a 4-perf frame (as is the 16mm frame) you are fitting twice as much information (picture wise, not resolution wise) on a roll of film. The running times of a 35mm roll of film in 2-perf is the same as with 16mm. To cover 11 minutes of action in 16mm is about 400', the same is true with 2-perf. To cover 11 minutes in 4-perf 35mm you'd need about 1000'. Since you pay per foot for processing and dailies you are paying the same amount for 16mm as you would for 2-perf."

 

I see a problem in your reasoning here. If you are using the same amount of footage with 35mm as with the 16mm, the cost is not the same - as you state. The cost is double. Per foot, 35 cost twice as much as 16mm. So, 35mm 2 perf would cost double S16. Right?

Edited April 28, 2007 by Frank Cook

[Alexander Joyce]

"Since the 2-perf frame is half the height of a 4-perf frame (as is the 16mm frame) you are fitting twice as much information (picture wise, not resolution wise) on a roll of film. The running times of a 35mm roll of film in 2-perf is the same as with 16mm. To cover 11 minutes of action in 16mm is about 400', the same is true with 2-perf. To cover 11 minutes in 4-perf 35mm you'd need about 1000'. Since you pay per foot for processing and dailies you are paying the same amount for 16mm as you would for 2-perf."

 

I see a problem in your reasoning here. If you are using the same amount of footage with 35mm as with the 16mm, the cost is not the same - as you state. The cost is double. Per foot, 35 cost twice as much as 16mm. So, 35mm 2 perf would cost double S16. Right?

 

 

Processing and dailies costs would be the same as with S16, but you would still pay twice as much for the 35mm stock as you would for the 16mm stock.

I'd say it's more of an issue when comparing shooting in 2-perf to 4-perf and not so much compared to shooting on S16 as the 35mm camera package would set you back a bit more also. Still it would bring you closer.

[Hal Smith]

Aranda Film in Australia does 2-perf conversions on a regular basis. I've talked to them about my Arri 2 and Bruce said "no problem".

 

http://www.2perf.arandafilm.com.au/

[Chris Keth]

A bit of math done from the diagrams on the first page and the Super 16 wikipedia figures:

 

A 2-perf frame (2.35:1) has an area of 207.9 square mm.

 

A super 16 frame (1.66:1) has an area of 92.8 square mm.

 

A super 16 frame cropped to 2.35:1 has an area of 66.6 square mm.

 

 

It certainly would make sense for a 2.35 movie on a budget.

Edited May 2, 2007 by Chris Keth

[Nathan Milford]

Processing and dailies costs would be the same as with S16, but you would still pay twice as much for the 35mm stock as you would for the 16mm stock.

 

You'd pay more per roll, but you get twice as much runtime out of each roll so in the end your cash outlay for stock will be similar.

 

You need X rolls to cover Y run time in 16mm

You need X*2 rolls to cover Y run time in 4P-35mm

 

Since the 2P-35mm frame is half the height of a 4P-35mm frame you are fitting twice as much information on that roll, doubling runtime (or the amount of images stored on that roll).

 

So you need X rolls to cover Y run time in 2P-35mm as opposed to X*2 for 4P-35mm

 

C'est vrei.

- nathan

[John Holland]

Think everone should take a couple steps back here , 2 perf for cinema release is going to have to go DI very expensive as Technicolor dont do dye transfer prints anymore , tv , wrong format !!

[Dan Goulder]

Think everone should take a couple steps back here , 2 perf for cinema release is going to have to go DI very expensive as Technicolor dont do dye transfer prints anymore , tv , wrong format !!

...no more so than 3-perf, which has probably never been used with dye transfer, either.

[Nathan Milford]

Think everone should take a couple steps back here , 2 perf for cinema release is going to have to go DI very expensive as Technicolor dont do dye transfer prints anymore , tv , wrong format !!

 

Where did any mention of Technicolor and dye imbibation printing come from?

 

In these contemporary discussions about the format, no one in their right mind is considering an optical path. A DI or video finish is implicit in the discussion of using 2-perf as an acquisitions format. It also uses normal MP stock and processing. It obviates the need for heavy, slow and expensive anamorphic optics and could even be used on an anamorphic show on steadicam.

 

The image quality is comparable to anything shot in Super 2.35, like Lord of the Rings etc.. It will never be as good as 4P-Anamorphic photography.

 

That said, it is an ideal choice for shows that would shoot 3 or 4-perf Super 2.35 as it saves on stock orders, processing and telecine. This is for shows that would be going a DI route anyway. Additionally, this isn't 1999. Digital Intermediates (2K especially) are becoming more and and more standard operating procedure and more and more affordable.

 

I can see epic series for channels like HBO shot in this format and mastered in HDCAM. shows going for a more cinematic feel in terms of quality, like Carnivale and Rome.

 

I am in no way saying this is a format for every use under the sun. It is a tool to be considered and sometimes it will fit your production and sometimes it will not.

[John Holland]

Nathan i did say it would have to via DI , i just dont see it as replacement for S16 for TV and i never said anything about anamorphic.

[victor huey]

Hi All, I am new to this site. I have a Kinor 35h sitting at aranda film awaiting conversion to 2 perf. I had sent it there with another Kinor 35H owner who was doing the same. Bruce offers a 20% discount for conversions done at the same time. Unfortunately that camera was rushed into service and was converted before mine could arrive. So I missed out on the discount, if another Kinor 35H owner comes forward and converts their camera, we both can get the discount. Bruce does good work and does modern electronics conversions as well. So if any of you want to convert your Kinor 35H , this is a good opportunity to do so. Plus if three cameras are done at the same time he will give a 25% discount.

 

Victor

[timHealy]

Hey Victor,

 

Welcome to the club! Sorry I don't have one. Jon Rosie and John Thomas are locals who contribute once in a while.

 

See you soon

 

Tim

[James Steven Beverly]

Hey, Victor, lookin' good! I have one but am not ready to upgrade the electronics yet, however when I do I also want to upgrade the motor bearing to a bronze or better yet a ball bearing one as well. You wouldn't happen to have the lubrication specs on the puppy would you? I'm particualarly worried about the motor shaft lube. I know it would benifit a lot of guys besides just me if you or anyone else did. Thanks and sorry for getting a little off topic here but I've been looking for these specs for a while now.

Edited May 23, 2007 by James Steven Beverly

[victor huey]

Hi James, I have actually asked Anders Banke to redo the shaft with a roller bearing, but the engineering and cost would have been expensive even when done in Russia. I have My Kinor 35H at Aranda now awaiting conversion, and have yet to ask Bruce about this issue. The other way around it is to be diligent about lubing the shaft at regular intervals. You Aheck oil in our car don't you. Even Panavision and Mitchell type movements require regular lubing. The Kinor is a mix of Moviecam and Mitichell designs, so it is nature of this camera, and in a way, I am rebuilding the entire camera to modernize it. The early Moviecam electronics had isssues, and the Mitchell movement is a very old design. The Russians should have copied the moviecam movement and modern electronics, but this was done on the 1980's. In reality, most shoots have several cameras for back up, being mechanical machines they need maintenance. The only reason most of us have gone the russian route is the low cost and quality of the lomo glass. So to build a modern Kinor camera body to accept these lens is not for the faint of heart. And how does one get a backup body, and spare parts. I ambuilding a system with backup, because that is how most professional productions operate. We Commiecam owners have to support each other. So you have to be a bit crazy hahahaha....to shoot film these days when 2k hd cams are coming. I hae 30 years experience working in film, so I guess I will have to make my first film in film. I always laugh when I see these digital movies described as films. But at the end of the day it's all about the story, story's that you have a passion to tell.

 

Victor

[James Steven Beverly]

OH I definately agree with you about us being dilllegent and being crazy :D The problem is that WE (meaning me and quite a few other Kinor 35H guys on this board) don't have the diagrams on how and where to routinely lube these cameras PARTICULARLY he motor shaft. Some of of us have been running our camera without preforming this matenance proceedure for a while now and I'm talking tens of thousands of feet of film. If you have that information and can share it, it would be GREATLY appreciated so we can hopefully keep these beasts up and running. I will, no doubt, at some point, aquire a back-up Kinor, but I'll still have to keep that one maintained as well so please, if you have this information, post it and be a hero to all us uninformed Kinor guys. Thanks-the Captain B)